Part 17
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┬───────────── City │ Preventive Work │ Any Unusual │ │ Conditions │ │ with Which │ │ Your │ │ Department │ │ Has to │ │ Contend? ├────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┤ │What Effort, If │Is Cost of│ Do Police │ │ Any, Made to │ Cleaning │and Health │ │ Secure │Considered│Departments│ │ Cooperation of │ in │and Courts │ │Public to Reduce│Selecting │Cooperate? │ │ Street Litter? │ Kind of │ │ │ │Pavement? │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┼────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼───────────── Buffalo │By ordinance. │No. │Yes. │None. Beacon │Waste cans. │No. │Yes. │No. Binghamton │ │ │ │ Cincinnati │Through press │No. │Yes. │Land slides │ and clean-up │ │ │ and floods. │ campaigns. │ │ │ Cambridge │Clean-up Week. │No. │Yes. │No. Chicago │ │ │Yes. │ Camden │Education │ │ │ │ campaign │ │ │ │ cooperating │ │ │ │ with civic │ │ │ │ organizations.│ │ │ Columbus │ │ │ │ Cleveland │ │ │ │ Cortland │ │No. │Some. │Some lanes in │ │ │ │ rear of │ │ │ │ stores used │ │ │ │ for dumping │ │ │ │ papers. Dunkirk │ │ │ │ Denver │ │ │ │ Elmira │Waste cans used.│Not much. │Yes. │No. Fall River │No. │No. │No. │No. Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ Hudson │ │Yes. │Yes. │Existence of │ │ │ │ alleys. Jamestown │ │ │ │City very │ │ │ │ hilly. Kansas City │Superintendent │No. │Yes. │No. │ arrests │ │ │ │ violators. │ │ │ Kingston │ │ │ │ Los Angeles │ │ │ │ Louisville │Yes. │ │Yes. │ Lowell │ │Yes. │Very │ │ │ │ little. │ Lynn │ │ │No. │Papers from │ │ │ │ refuse │ │ │ │ collectors. Lackawanna │Clean-up │Yes. │Yes. │No. │ campaign. │ │ │ Little Falls │None. │To some │No. │ │ │ extent. │ │ Milwaukee │Publicity and │ │Yes. │No. │ circulars. │ │ │ Middletown │Placed cans for │Yes. │Yes. │No. │ paper. Through│ │ │ │ press. │ │ │ Mechanicville│Police │ │Yes. │No. │ department and│ │ │ │ waste cans. │ │ │ New York City│Anti-litter │ │Yes. │Construction │ League │ │ │ work; push │ Educational │ │ │ carts. │ work. │ │ │ New Orleans │ │ │ │ New Bedford │ │ │ │ Newark │Police │No. │Yes. │No. │ department and│ │ │ │ public │ │ │ │ schools. │ │ │ Norwich │Very little. │No. │No. │No. New Rochelle │Yes, by │Yes. │Yes. │No. │ ordinance. │ │ │ Niagara Falls│Placing waste │Yes. │Yes. │No. │ cans. │ │ │ Newburgh │Through press, │ │ │ │ cans provided,│ │ │ │ hand-bills │ │ │ │ distributed in│ │ │ │ business │ │ │ │ section. │ │ │ Oakland │Distribute │Yes. │Only in │None. │ cards, │ │ extreme │ │ enforcements │ │ cases. │ │ of ordinance │ │ │ │ prohibiting │ │ │ │ dumping of │ │ │ │ refuse in │ │ │ │ streets. │ │ │ Oswego │Use waste cans. │ │ │No city │ │ │ │ garbage or │ │ │ │ ash │ │ │ │ collection; │ │ │ │ people dump │ │ │ │ on back │ │ │ │ streets. Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ Philadelphia │Pamphlets │In general│To some │Overloaded │ distributed. │ way. │ extent. │ wagons, │ Rubbish cards │ │ │ storekeeper │ distributed, │ │ │ sweeping │ lectures to │ │ │ dust into │ school │ │ │ street. │ children. │ │ │ │ Place waste │ │ │ │ cans. │ │ │ Providence │ │ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ Rochester │ │ │ │ Rensselaer │ │No. │Yes. │No. Reading │ │ │ │ Richmond │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ St. Louis │Placing metal │Yes. │ │ │ refuse boxes │ │ │ │ on sidewalk. │ │ │ San Francisco│Place dirt cans │ │Yes. │ │ and paper │ │ │ │ cans. │ │ │ Salt Lake │Enforcement of │ │Yes. │ City │ ordinances. │ │ │ Springfield │ │ │ │ Seattle │Through the │ │Yes. │Many hills. │ press. │ │ │ Scranton │ │ │ │ Troy │ │ │ │ Utica │ │ │ │ Washington │Placing waste │No. │Yes. │ │ paper boxes, │ │ │ │ police │ │ │ │ regulation. │ │ │ ─────────────┴────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬─────────────────── City │Disposal of Sweepings │ │ │ │ │ │ ├─────────┬───────── │ Average │ Average │ No. of │Amount of │Cu. Yds. │Sweepings │ of │Collected │Sweepings│ at Each │per 1,000│Cleaning │Sq. Yds. │ │ of Area │ │ Cleaned │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┼─────────┼───────── Buffalo │ │ Beacon │ │ Binghamton │ │ Cincinnati │ .24│ Yes. │ │ │ │ Cambridge │ │ Yes. Chicago │ .079│ .079 Camden │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbus │ │ Cleveland │ │ Cortland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Dunkirk │ │ Denver │ │ Elmira │ │ Fall River │ │ Grand Rapids │ │ Hudson │½ cu. yd.│ │ │ Jamestown │ .053│ │ │ Kansas City │ │ │ │ │ │ Kingston │ │ Los Angeles │ │ Louisville │ │ Lowell │ │ │ │ Lynn │ │ │ │ │ │ Lackawanna │ │ │ │ Little Falls │ │ │ │ Milwaukee │ │ │ │ Middletown │ │ │ │ │ │ Mechanicville│ │ │ │ │ │ New York City│ 28.6 per│ .029 cu. │ yr.│ yds. │ │ │ │ New Orleans │ │ Yes. New Bedford │ │ Newark │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Norwich │ │ New Rochelle │ 119 cu.│ │ yds.│ Niagara Falls│ │ │ │ Newburgh │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Oakland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Oswego │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Ogdensburg │ │ Philadelphia │ .17│ .23 cu. │ │ yds. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Providence │ │ │ │ Rochester │ │ Rensselaer │ │ Reading │ │ Richmond │ │ │ │ St. Louis │ │ │ │ │ │ San Francisco│ │ │ │ │ │ Salt Lake │ │ City │ │ Springfield │ │ Seattle │ │ │ │ Scranton │ │ Troy │ │ Utica │ │ Washington │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┴─────────┴─────────
─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────── City │Disposal of Sweepings │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────────────────────────────────────────── │ Method of Disposal │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├────┬──────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────── │ On │ Used │ Sold for │ Price │ Total │City│ for │Fertilizer│ Charged │ Yearly │Dump│Filler│ │ │Receipts ─────────────┼────┼──────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────── Buffalo │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ Beacon │ │ │Yes. │Contract. │ $137.00 Binghamton │ │ │ │ │ Cincinnati │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Cambridge │ │ │ │ │ Chicago │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ Camden │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Columbus │ │ │ │ │ Cleveland │Yes.│ │ │ │ Cortland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Dunkirk │Yes.│ │ │ │ Denver │Yes.│ │ │ │ Elmira │ │Yes. │ │ │ Fall River │Yes.│ │ │ │ Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │ Hudson │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Jamestown │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Kansas City │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Kingston │ │ │ │ │ Los Angeles │ │ │Yes. │ │ Louisville │Yes.│ │ │ │ Lowell │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Lynn │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Lackawanna │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Little Falls │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Milwaukee │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Middletown │Yes.│ │ │30¢. for │ │ │ │ │ 1½ yds. │ │ │ │ │ │ Mechanicville│ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ New York City│ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ New Orleans │ │ │ │ │ New Bedford │ │ │ │ │ Newark │ │Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Norwich │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ New Rochelle │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Niagara Falls│Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Newburgh │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Oakland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Oswego │Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │ Philadelphia │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Providence │Yes.│Yes. │ │$2.00 per │ │ │ │ │ cord. │ Rochester │ │ │ │ │ Rensselaer │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │No. │ Reading │ │ │ │ │ Richmond │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │15¢. per │ │ │ │ │ load. │ St. Louis │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ San Francisco│Yes.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Salt Lake │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ City │ │ │ │ │ Springfield │Yes.│ │Yes. │No. │ Seattle │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Scranton │ │ │ │ │ Troy │ │ │ │ │ Utica │ │ │ │ │ Washington │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┴────┴──────┴──────────┴──────────┴────────
NOTE: Seattle and Denver are the only cities which report that they clean their sidewalks. Denver limits its work to the business district. All cities report they do not dump sweepings in manholes. All cities except Salt Lake City and Norwich report they sprinkle streets preceding sweeping. Cambridge, San Francisco, and Springfield, Mass., are the only cities which report they do not have sprinklers precede squeegee machines.
Footnote 1:
On account of favorable weather conditions and the necessity of economising very little machine brooming is done.
Footnote 2:
One-tenth of it cleaned four times daily. Two-fifths once a day. One- half once a week.
Footnote 3:
Flushing only.
Footnote 4:
Hand cleaning, flushing and squeegeeing.
Footnote 5:
Not including alleys.
Footnote 6:
Flushing only.
Footnote 7:
Hand and machine sweeping and flushing.
Footnote 8:
Entire year.
Footnote 9:
Sweepers patrol streets from one to ten times daily.
Footnote 10:
Also includes machine sweeping, cleaned periodically.
Footnote 11:
Also includes machine sweeping—per year.
Footnote 12:
43,341 loads in year; 85% 2 cu. yds. each and 15% 3 cu. yds. each.
Footnote 13:
Four of these on the average will be sub-foremen at $3.50, and the other laborers at $2.50 for 8 hours. These men are also under the supervision of four district deputies at $125 a month each. These district deputies have many other duties.
Footnote 14:
Length of day eight hours, unless otherwise noted.
Footnote 15:
For water and oil.
Footnote 16:
.045 foot frontage for 40 foot street.
.055 foot frontage for 50 foot street.
.065 foot frontage for 60 foot street.
Footnote 17:
City also paid for water and hydrant rental $25,329.88
Footnote 18:
Based on street 30 feet wide and sprinkled twice daily for 150 days.
Footnote 19:
Railroad company furnishes electric power and use of tracks for car sprinkler and power flusher. City pays for car.
Footnote 20:
City furnishes two men and company motormen and conductor. City owns sprinklers.
Footnote 21:
Including 10% of cost of machinery for depreciation and repairs and 4½% interest on machinery.
Footnote 22:
Trolley car flusher.
Footnote 23:
Per 1,000 sq. yds.
Footnote 24:
Does not include depreciation and interest.
Footnote 25:
On city work only. Does not include amount paid to contractor.
Footnote 26:
Includes cleaning drains and gutters and inlets, cleaning under small highway bridges and removing fallen trees from roadway.
Footnote 27:
One square equals 540 ft. including salaries and wages, cost of new appliances, repairs and maintenance of appliances and all other overhead charges.
Footnote 28:
Includes depreciation and repairs, but not general supervision.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL EFFICIENCY OF PROCESSES USED BY AMERICAN CITIES—OPINIONS OF AUTHORITIES— EXPERIMENTS WITH NEW METHODS.
Recognition of the necessity for the proper disposal of sewage is now quite prevalent in most American communities, whether large or small. In many sections the problem has become vital, and as the population increases, it is only a matter of time when all will be compelled to solve the problem, for its importance grows in direct proportion to the rapid increase in inhabitants. The continued concentration of population makes it increasingly difficult and expensive for a municipality to secure and maintain a pure water supply and forces community activity for protection against disease germs. It also causes the demand for the improvement of the esthetic condition of bodies of water within or near a city’s boundaries. Many states have already recognized the conditions due to these nuisances and have enacted strict legislation with a view to preventing the pollution of streams and other bodies of water, for the protection of water supplies, surface and underground, and for the elimination of disease germs accompanying sewage. States and even nations have realized that sewage disposal is more than a local problem. In every case it is an inter-community problem, in some it is inter- state and in a few the question must be settled by national governments.